WHY THE ROAD FROM 9/11 GOES THROUGH IRAQ

Earlier this month, Thomas Friedman wrote a column that cut to the heart of the Iraq debate, but has since continued to be ignored by all sides in the ongoing debate. His point was that the debate on Iraq, by framing curtailing proliferation as the essential goal and regime change as a debatable means had things upside down. Iraq skeptics are right to ask the question as to why the need to curtail Iraq's nonconvential arms production has radically changed in the past 13 months. One could easily argue that in the short term, terrorists are more likely to acquire nuclear capability from the decaying infrastructure of the former Soviet Union, or through Islamist elements in the Pakistani military. No, the more immediate lesson of 9/11 is that the status quo in the Arab-Islamic world - of corrupt, brutal dictatorships and Islamist counter-movements is unacceptable. The misery of millions is no longer containable - it has become globalized through Islamist terror. Radically changing this environment, therefore, is not just a moral obligation but the most crucial challenge for American and global security.

Iraq skeptics like to point out that the two fonts of Islamist terror, both theologically and financially, are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saddam is at best a distant third player, with his offers to fund Palestinian terror and cheerleading of attacks on America. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran, however, are particularly good targets for an American policy of regime change. The Saudis have bought international prestige and influence with oil money. The diplomatic and economic hurdles towards removing the Saudi regime are formidable - and the absence of non-Islamist opposition palpable. Iran presents precisely the opposite problem - the existence of a grass-roots, democratic protest movement. Without a doubt, regime change in Iran should be an essential goal of American foreign policy. However, too much involvement on the side of the opposition could be counterproductive, allowing the mullahs to feed off a nationalist backlash. It is best for both America and Iran if the regime is toppled from within, giving a successor democratic government legitimacy. In contrast, Iraq is much better target - diplomatically isolated, economically marginalized, and relatively secular. The influence of a democratic, pro-Western Iraq would be enormous - an opportunity for cosmopolitan Islam to once more emanate from the historic seat of the caliphate.

The strategy of intializing a new order in the Arab-Islamic world through regime change in Iraq is not without its problems. Iraq is not an organic political entity, but a fractious collection of ethnic and religious groups fastened by British mapmakers and held together by despotic will. Nation-building is a long, arduous task that requires a long-term commitment. It is unclear whether the U.S. has the stamina or the world community the moral clarity required in this case. The problem with the Iraq skeptics is that they offer up these critiques without any constructive alternatives. The need to radically remake the political landscape of the Arab-Islamic world, making it hospital for democracy and inhospitable for Islamism, is no longer debatable aftermath of 9/11. Opposition to an invasion of Iraq can not rise beyond petty obstructionism unless it addresses this critical need, and presents a viable alternative.

SORTING OUT THE NEW GROUND RULES

The new job is wonderful, but it does come with a prohibition on partisan political activity. (I note the irony of my present level of partisanship being at its lowest point in years). Anyway, until I sort out the exact guidelines, blogging will be light. There are plenty of good sites to follow the daily drama of "rock and roll" politics, so my exit from that arena should not be missed. If I made any real contribution with this blog, it was most likely my discussions of principles as opposed to politics anyway.

ON THE PINE

Between holidays and the start of a new job, blogging will take a back seat in the next week. I think its a safe presumption that this won't put a crimp in anybody's plans.

DESPONDENT ON THE DEMS

I don't think this TNR editorial could match my own feelings on the matter closer if I penned it myself.

BUSH AT THE UN

This morning was one of W's finest moments. The gauntlet has been thrown down - take the threat of Hussein seriously or face irrelevance. The hope is that today's speech is more than simply a tactical compromise within the Bush Administration and part of a longer term vision of spearheading a radical reform of the U.N.

A MOVING TRIBUTE

This site brought it all back - the horror, the pain and the heroism.

WRIGHT THINKING IN THE WAR ON TERROR

I've been awful hard on Robert Wright in the past for his questionable grasp of the terrain of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but so far his multi-part series on fighting terror has been brilliant, especially his section on the need to promote democracy in the Islamic world.

THE LOW POINT OF A GREAT MAN'S CAREER

When someday we look back and remember the greatness that was Nelson Mandela, it would be wise to skip over anything he ever said about the Middle East.

For a refresher on the stupidity of the Israel as "White Colonialist Oppressor" argument, there's no better place to turn than Natalie Portman 's famous op-ed

A NEW WORLD ORDER (FOR REAL THIS TIME)

You don't have to be Collin Powell or Jacques Chirac to find American unilateralism problematic. The breakdown of the Atlantic alliance bodes well for neither Americans nor Europeans. But a frank reassessment of the international order shows that tremendous decay has set in over the past fifty years. The United Nations routinely makes a mockery of its self-proclaimed ideals, acting at best as amorally inefficiant and at worst as the conduit for the propaganda of the world's tyrannies. There is room however for a grand deal that can put the Atlantic alliance back together, and create a more just, more effective world order. America will agree to once more act as a good global citizen (using the proper international channels, increasing its investment in foreign aid, cooperating on international treaties) if the Europeans replace their formalist approach to international law with substantive commitment to expanding liberal, humanistic values. In other words, no more anti-American rallies masquerading as U.N. Conferences. No more Khadaffis chairing Human Rights Commission. No more hijacking of international fora to scapegoat Israel for the world's problems. As distateful as this multilateral idealism may be to European diplomats, its got to be preferable to an unrestrained global hegemon.

NOT PLAYING BY THEIR RULES ANYMORE

Martin Walker has an excellent column on the why 9/11 was the final straw that led to a resurgence of American unilateralism.

Here are the highlights:

Osama bin Laden's shock troops zeroed in on a haunting paradox of the modern world; that a strong and rich and self-confident America is good for a world that increasingly resents it....

This paradox may be seen in the jeering response to America's first black secretary of state at last week's global summit in Johannesburg. It was on display in last week's meeting at the Arab League of foreign ministers whose regimes often rely on American support, and can constantly be encountered in the opinion pages of liberal European newspapers that should know better. And all of them seem to assume that America will continue to sit back and take it, like the good global citizen that America has tried to be in the last 60 years of defeating Fascism, Nazism, Communism and helping spread more wealth and more freedom to more people in more places than ever in human history.

They are wrong. The real effect of Sept. 11 is that American patience and tolerance for its global critics, most of whom do rather well out of America's benign hegemony, seems just about exhausted. And however it was that Osama bin Laden expected what he has called "the American Empire" to react to his murderous assault, if indeed he thought that far ahead, he seems not to have calculated that America might react by tearing up the old rule book of international affairs.....

Note that this is not the case of an enraged and vengeful America telling the world "no more Mr. Nice Guy." It is America saying "Enough" to the European "internationalism" of compromise and appeasement, and holding true to its core principles -- that democracy is in itself a good thing for all states and all peoples. The most valuable export America can send out to the world is its values and its freedoms and its readiness to devote blood and treasure to the mission. That would be the real memorial to the victims of 9-11.

FOR A TAX-AND-SPEND LIBERAL HAWK, THIS ONE'S A NO-BRAINER

Hesiod challenges the Iraq hawks with the following:

Here's a rather simple challenge to all those who favor a war with Iraq: How about ponying up an extra 3% on your income taxes to
pay for it?

I accept - repeal the stupid tax give-away for the rich and use it to knock out Saddam and rebuild Iraq. As for a seperate 3% tax on all hawks, well sure, as long as I can get my share of the stupid farm bill back.

OH, KERRY, HOLD ON...

I've finally gotten around to rereading would-be president John Kerry's op-ed in the Times on Iraq. His multilateralist critique is legitimate - its important to give the international community, our allies (NATO, not our "allies" such as Saudi Arabia) and Congress the opportunity to get on board. The proper response to the disfunctional state of the U.N. is not to ignore it, but to make a major push to reform it. And multilateralism is most essential for post-war nation-building. However, the strong points of Kerry's argument are undercut by his distressing lack of a broader vision. The problem is that Kerry sees regime change not an intrinsically worthy goal, but as the "ultimate weapons-enforcement mechanism"? Does Kerry really believe that renewed inspections is a long-term solution? How does he intend to deal with Hussein's continued support for terror? And most importantly, how does he propose to reshape the region to disperse the current toxic environment of corrupt regimes and Islamist resistance? Alas, the search for a coherent Democratic alternative to the Bushies foreign policy continues.

RIGHT-WING PIPE DREAMS

Just One Minute is buying into the latest round of GOP hyping of a Black-Jewish rift leading to a Jewish exodus to the GOP, dooming the Dems. The latest version of the argument is particularly weak. It rests on the following premises.

1) Jews have voted for GOP candidates such as Pataki, Weld and Bloomberg.
2) The post Camp David violence in the Middle East and the rise of anti-Semitism in the Arab world and Europe have made solidarity with Israel the highest priority on the American Jewish agenda.
3) The left wing of the Democratic party, especially Black multiculturalists, want to tilt American foreign policy away from Israel.
4) The GOP has become reliably pro-Israel - which has firm support of the influential neocons and the Christian Right.

The most comprehensive study of Jewish voting patterns, published in Commentary a few years ago, revealed the following patterns - that American Jews were no longer radically left of the overall voting population on economic issues, but remained solidly liberal on cultural issues. The study concluded that educational background was the dominant factor in Jewish voting patterns. At this point in American Jewish history, assimilation is the dominant factor in American Jewish voting patterns - but the America Jews have assimilated into is socially liberal, fiscally moderate world of suburban professionals. And as the Emerging Democratic Majority accurately describes, this group of voters is behind the recent dominance of the Dems in the Northeast suburbs. In this context, the votes for Pataki, Bloomberg and Weld are meaningless. Sure - Jews will vote for GOP candidates - if they run as moderate Democrats.

What is more relevant is the reemergence of Israel solidarity among affilliated Jews in the past two years. The post-Camp David Palestinian terror offensive has healed the rift between the mainstream Oslo supporters and opponents, producing a united front solidly behind Israel's right to defend itself. Affiliated American Jews strongly support Bush's stance in the Middle East, as well as the Admnistration's hawkish position in the war on terror. However, at the present, the Democratic party remains staunchly pro-Israel, with the exception of its multiculturalist left-wing. There is no reason to suggest that the "People of Color" school of foreign policy (supporting the leadership of a nations "of color" regardless of their political makeup), espoused by left-wing Black leaders, is gaining strength among Black voters or the Democratic party at large.

The simple fact is that despite the affinity of many of American Jews for GOP foreign policy, on the overwhelming majority of domestic issues, from abortion to guns to the economy to the environment to education to health care, American Jews are at home in the Democratic party. And unless the Dems completely blunder on Israel and foreign policy, they are likely to remain there for the forseeable future.

JEWISH MONEY, BLACK CANDIDATES

Jake Tapper, in the Weekly Standard, destroys the arguments that lays the defeat of Hilliard and McKinney at the hands of "outside Jewish money." As Tapper reports, the Congressional Black Caucas spearheaded efforts to preserve the availability of out-of-district and out-of-state financing. The reason is that Black candidates on the whole, raise a higher proportion of their campaign funds from out-of-state than other candidates, and wanted to preserve access to liberal donors based in New York and L.A. And who might these liberal donors be? Many of them Jews of course, who donate in amounts staggeringly disproportionate to their numbers. The fact is that despite all the hype about a breakdown of black-Jewish relations, the non-Blacks most commited to electing Black representatives are Jews. The most reliable political allies for Black politicians remain Jews. Pragmatic Black leaders realize this - the Congressional Black Caucus certaintly realizes this. The only ones who don't are left-wing Jews, driven by guilt, who perversely consider only the most hostile Black leaders to be "authentic." What would they rather prefer - that Jews donate to Black candidates who are coalition-builders that will help move forward progressive policies or that Jews cease donating to Black candidates all together?

THE MOOSE IS LOOSE, THE PINE IS FINE?

The Bull Moose (McCain advisor Marshall Wittman), on why he bolted from the GOP (abandoning his quixotic efforts at reclaiming it from fundamentalists and lobbyists) but isn't jumping to the Dems.

It is truly odd that neither party can accommodate the market niche of voters who are hawks on foreign policy, moderate traditionalists on cultural issues and progressive on economics.

Wait a second, that pretty much describes me. Do I have to go looking for a new party now? Well, for now, count me in as a Joe Lieberman Democrat (who's up for grabs if McCain runs as an independent). Ah, things were so much simpler back when foreign policy was irrelevant.

STARTING ANEW

On the first morning of Rosh Hashanah, Rabbi Leonard Gordon of Germantown Jewish Centre gave an excellent D'var Torah addressing the unique problems facing the Jewish community at the beginning of this new year. Rabbi Gordon's starting point was the rabbinic tradition that not only is Rosh Hashanah the anniversary of the creation of the world, but that the world and each individual are created anew each Rosh Hashanah. One should therefore not be burdened down by the problems of the past year, but look forward optimistically to the potential of the coming year.

Rabbi Gordon noted the serious tension between the tradition's optimism and the experience and mood of the American Jewish community from the past year's events. The combination of 9/11, the collapse of any semblance of peace in Israel, and the rise of anti-Semitism in the Arab world and Europe has spooked American Jews. In particular, three anecdotes illustrated the collapse of confidence of American Jews - a denominational leader worrying about the specter of two Jews running against each other for mayor in New York, the decision of a youth group travelling cross-country to adopt a policy of keeping a "low profile" (unmarked bus, baseball caps in public, etc.) and the voicing of mainstream Jewish voices of the idea that an American Holocaust was realistic possibility.

Rabbi Gordon spoke forcefully against this instinct of defensiveness, panic and withdrawal. He cited Leon Wielseltier's essay "Hitler is Dead" which reflected on the folly of the current panic of American Jews. Nat Hentoff, who claimed that "if a loudspeaker went off ordering all Jews to gather in Times Square it would not be surprising" - was precisely wrong. America is still very much a wondrous nation in which such a comment is absurd. The proper response to even a year a difficult as 5762, is to choose life, ane embrace optimism. Of course there is much about other people and the outside world that we can not control and cannot change - but we are not given the option to despair. Rather, in following the commandment of teshuva (repentance), we must look inward, and change what we can about our own actions.

I wholeheartedly endorse Rabbi Gordon's admonition. There is no justification to project the hatred of our past experience onto the very different reality that is present day America. American Jews must remain open and trusting of our neighbors and fellow citizens. Nor can we abandon the dream of peace in Israel despite the savage violence. We must continue to respect the common humanity of our enemies, hoping that one day they will return our faith with a recognition of our humanity. Jews must withdrawl from public life, but redouble our efforts at Tikkun Olam. May we leave the world one year from now less broken than it is today.

SHANA TOVA

I'm off to celebrate the start of 5763. May you have a sweet and healthy new year.

IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERROR: THE DEMS DILEMMA

By far the strongest argument that the Iraq doves have is the current status of the other fronts in the war on terror. After failing to commit to nation-building in Afghanistan, we've let most of the country lapse back into the same anarchy which produced the Taliban in the first place. Second, as the Instapundit sums up neatly in the Fox News column, progress on domestic security reform in the past year has been a disgrace. The endless, content-free debate over Iraq however overshadows both failures - and so far the Bushies have emerged politically unscathed from either front. All of which is leading liberal pundits to twist their mouths like Dana Carvey's Church Lady and exclaim "Well, isn't that convenient."

The first problem with this conspiracy theory, points out Andrew Sullivan in Salon, is that Bush Admnistration had set Saddam in their sights even before 9/11, and has been hinting about taking him on since immediately afterward. Say what you want about the Bushies, they genuinely believe that war with Iraq is essential for this nation's security. The second problem is the Bushies happen to be right on Iraq - pretty much the only successful response by the Bushies in the past year has been their deployment of military force. These leaves the Dem with a tough dilemma - how to deliver much deserved criticism to the Bush Administration when it happens to be right on the most important issue facing the nation. So far they've chosen to put their efforts behind blocking Bush on Iraq, while giving him a free pass everywhere else. I can't think of a worse choice for the Dems or our country.

BARAK ON IRAQ

Liberals are confused about Ehud Barak's hawkishness on Iraq. How, after all, could the man that put his political life on the line for peace at Camp David be pushing for an U.S. attack on Iraq? Isn't that just the position of Sharon, the Likud, the messianic settlers (you know, the Israeli bad guys). Does this mean that Barak has gone to the "dark side"? No, what this reflects instead is the shallow understanding of liberal pundits (even a light of Veritas like Matthew Yglesias) when it comes to war and peace in the Middle East.

The Israeli consensus on Iraq extends far past a core of hard-line Likudniks. It is embraced by the High Priest of Oslo himself, Shimon Peres. From its inception, the Labor-Likud debate on the merits of Olso was mirrored by a similar debate on Israel's strategic threats. Likud's security experts argued that Israel's main existential threat remained its vulnerability to a ground invasion, and thus it was essential to retain the defensive high ground of the Golan Heights and the West Bank ridge. Labor's security experts, on the other hand, felt that Israel's greatest existential threat came from weapons of mass destruction delivered by intermediate missiles. Thus, Labor believed that Oslo would enhance Israeli security by resolving the Palestinian conflict (and a Golan deal would settle the Syrian border), allowing Israel to focus on the greater threat - an Iraqi or Iranian drive towards regional hegemony powered by unconventional weapons. Likud, on the other hand, felt that the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank would make Israel's dense coastal plain a tempting target for terror or other military attacks.

Seen in this context, therefore, it is unsurprising that all of Labor's leaders from Peres to Barak are hawkish on Iraq. In their minds, if Hussein is not taken out, he will eventually launch a non-conventional attack against Israel. This is something that is inevitable, not provokable. Thus, it is better to remove Hussein now, when he is relatively weak, than to wait until he has a greater capacity to harm Israel. Finally, it is precisely because of Labor's commitment to a negotiated peace with the Palestinians that they support the removal of Hussein's regime. With Oslo in tatters, all but the most myopic of the Labor party realize that a major shake-up has to occur to get any peace process back on track. The overthrow of Hussein will send shockwaves throughout the Arab world, weakening radicals and strengthening pragmatists. And if its influence is strong enough for the Palestinians more sensible leaders to sack Arafat, institute reforms, crack down on terror and return to good-faith negotiations - it may accomplish the impossible task of bringing Labor back from the dead.

TU CREES EN MILAGROS?

I wouldn't believe it if hadn't seen the second half of the game myself. Argentina 87, USA 80. It was like watching a Spanish-language version of Hoosiers, with our All-Stars (yes, the very best weren't there, but Baron Davis, Paul Pierce and Jermaine O'Neal are hardly a bunch of stiffs) getting beat by backdoor screens, cuts, and excellent transition defense. If anyone ever doubted that basketball was a team sport, watch a tape of this game. It should be shown to every overconfident favorite that plans to slide by on talent, and let effort and execution slide. Pepe Sanchez, I salute you!!!

OTP 2002 NFL PREVIEW

That's right - it's time for a new season of bold prognostication followed by shameless backtracking and equivocation. Some things last season went as planned - the Rams were great, the Panthers were awful, etc. A lot didn't, which is becoming par for the course in the past couple of seasons. The Patriots 2001 season reads like a Disney movie - struggling team with checkered history loses two best offensive players, but led by veteran cast-offs and a no-name kid QB rallies behind its embattled coach to win it all against incredible odds. Has there ever been a more redundant - I'm going to Disneyland than Tom Brady's. So, fans expect the following wrenchs to be thrown in the works: 1) 1-2 contenders will be knocked out by injuries (2001 Titans & Broncos); 2) a contender will fizzle do to chemistry problems (see the 2001 Saints), and 3) a contender will emerge from nowhere behind a stingy defensive and a play-it-safe offensive (2001 Pats & Bears). Anyone who knows now who those teams are should be using their prophetic talents on something far more important than football.

NFC Contenders - can win it all if:
1) Rams: They find someone to step up for London Fletcher, don't choke
2) Eagles: The defensive line holds together and Freeman still has something left
3) 49ers: They figure out how to keep Owens happy and a young star emerges on the defense
4) Packers: Glenn spends more time on the field than in the locker room, and the secondary improves
5) Bucs: Gruden is as smart as he thinks he is, Brooks and Sapp regain 2000 form.

NFC Pack - can make the playoffs if:
6) Bears: Their fans can find the stadium, and someone pressures the other QB
7) Skins: Spurrier can turn one of his Gators into a decent NFL QB, Arrington is as good as the hype
8) Saints: Brooks' head is screwed on right, they have someone to fill those holes on D
9) Cowboys: They get something approaching average quarterbacking, they force more turnovers
10) Giants: Their young corners develop, Shockey becomes Collins' security blanket

NFC Longshots - will be watchable if:
11) Cards: Plummer decides to play in the first three quarters, you have a player on the other teams' offense on your fantasy team
12) Falcons: Vick isn't running for his life on every play (well that might be watchable), they uncover a pass rush
13) Seahawks: They change their uniforms back to the old colors, Dilfer has time to throw
14) Vikings: They throw the ball to Moss on every play, the other team decides not to run the ball
15) Lions: They let Joey Harrington play before the score is 31-0...wish I had more
16) Panthers: Deshaun Foster gets into the lineup, you're a fan of the team they're playing.

AFC Contenders - can win it all if:
1) Steelers: Kordell blocks out all memories of the AFC championship meltdown, they figure out a way to use three QBs on one play
2) Dolphins: The offensive line opens some holes for Ricky Williams, the defensive line closes some against opposing backs.
3) Patriots: Who wrote last year's fairy-tale penned a sequel, Jamal Anderson has a miraculous recovery, signs, and brings the "Dirty Militaman" to New England.
4) Colts: Tony Dungy gets the defense to play over their heads, Edgerran James is the old Edgerran James
5) Broncos: The offensive line adjusts to the new rules on run blocking, McCafferty's return cures Griese

AFC Pack - can make the playoffs if
6) Browns: Somebody blocks for Couch and Green, Warren and Brown dominate the line of scrimmage
7) Titans: Eddie George is back to normal, they plugged the leaks in the secondary
8) Jets: Vinnie has something left, the old Sam Cowart is playing MLB
9) Raiders: The old vets no longer need Gruden to master the offense, the free agent signings plug up the front seven
10) Chargers: Drew Brees is as good as he looked last year, Jammer catches up after his holdout
11) Chiefs: Green settles for being Trent Green instead of Kurt Warner, the defense rises to mediocrity

AFC Longshots - will be watchable if:
12) Bills: The line gives Bledsoe a little protection, they drafted well on the defensive side of the ball
13) Bengals: Frerrotte gives them Dilferesque mistake-free QBing, the defensive forces more turnovers
14) Ravens: Brian Billick really was the genius behind the '98 Vikings offense, Jamal Lewis fully recovers
15) Jaguars: Fred Taylor defies the odds, they don't have to play defense
16) Texans: Their offensive line heals in time to let Carr play this year, their overpaid cap casulties play with a chip on their shoulders.

Completely Biased Playoff Predictions
NFC: Eagles, Packers, Bucs, Rams, 49ers(wc), 'Skins(wc)
AFC: Dolphins, Steelers, Colts, Broncos, Patriots(wc), Browns(wc)
Championship games: Eagles over Rams, Steelers over Browns
Super Bowl Prediction: Eagles 20, Steelers 16

DEMS AND HOMELAND SECURITY: WHO'S GOT JOE'S BACK

In today's Post, Lieberman thrases the Bushies for slowing down the critical homeland security bill by taking a hard line on side issues such as civil service reform and legislative oversight. Joe's stand only begs the question as to where on earth is the rest of the Democratic Party on the issue of domestic security? In the past year, the Bushies progress on the domestic security reform can be described charitably as glacial, yet up to this point they've suffered no backlash for this critical failure. Doesn't anyone have anything to say - Chuck? Hillary? Kerry? Feinstein? Daschle? does anyone have Joe's back?

SEPTEMBER 11 WAS NOT A NATURAL DISASTER

The closer we approach to the one-year anniversary of September 11th, the more depressed I get thinking about the media's frenzied efforts at commemoration programming. The main theme that has emerged is one of grief - personalized grief. We will be told of the lives of those who were "taken away" from us that day, who were "struck down by a cruel fate", whose great potential was "tragically cut short." All of which is necessary, but woefully insufficient. The reason is that such a retelling makes the cause of the tragedy irrelevant - all of these poignant vignants, interviews and memorials would need nary a revision had the World Trade Center been felled by a tornado rather than hijacked passenger jets. The words we use to refer to 9/11, therefore matter. It was not merely a senseless tragedy, a horrifying reminder of our vulnerability and mortality - it was a massacre. The tragic deaths, the incredible anguish of those they left behind, the scars upon all of our psyches were the desired end of meticulous planning and cold-blooded execution. The culprit was not natural amorality but human immorality. Yes, grief is an important emotion on this one-year anniversary, but we must also tap into the other emotions that have also dulled in the past year - anger, resolve and pride. For as much as we need to look back to remember those our enemies murdered one year ago, we need to look forward to thwart the massacres they plan to commit in the years to come. Remembrance, yes - closure, no.